http://www.agnosticforums.com/ Empiricism, Logic, and the Scientific Method. What do you mean by the terms you use (i.e. religion, life, God)? en Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:48:15 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.agnosticforums.com/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.agnosticforums.com/ http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3241&goto=newpost Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:57:04 GMT I have to say, I'm thoroughly enjoying Anthony Flew's book "There Is A God" Amazon link http://amzn.to/9ZVwwE

He's a professional philosopher, very well respected. I'd heard of him when I did my time in undergrad philosophy. After over 50 years publishing as an atheist it tells the story and reasons for his change of mind, from lifelong atheist to believer in God (but not in a specific religion.) I'm only halfway through, but will attempt to put up a review when I'm done.

I don't think it would be for everyone, some of the terminology assumes a certain basic philosophical knowledge, but at the same time it's a fairly "popular" read. He tends to go briefly over most topics so far, rather than exhaustively. I think some can probably skip the hard details to the conclusions.

He also engages with "ignostic" arguments at some points, for those who are interested in that.

Anyone else read it? ]]> JonathanElliot http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3241 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3237&goto=newpost Sat, 04 Sep 2010 06:23:57 GMT Maybe this is going to sound completely and utterly crazy, and maybe someone has already come up with this before (I admit I'm not a big fan or student of philosophy and though I'm interested in science, quantum physics, space/time studies, i don't admit to understanding everything they're saying or keeping up on ALL the theories out there) but I was thinking about whether the universe itself and time and space could be circular instead of linear.

Most theist, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, state that God is eternal, he always has been, always will be, that nothing created him and nothing will ever destroy him, the beginning and the end, etc etc etc. Now I'm not saying their God exists, I don't believe in their interpretation/description of God at all, but if you look at the universe and everything in it, including the earth and living things, as "God", what if it is "circular?" What I mean is, what if time and therefore existence operates in a sort of cycle, or ring? Time/creation begins, it goes on and on and on throughout the years until the end of the universe and then it starts again? What if we've lived this life lots of times before? I've actually heard a similar theory on the cause of deja vu experiences, prophetic visions/dreams/etc. It would be like a movie that plays and when it gets to the end is automatically set to just start over indefinitely.

Now some will say that time can't be a circle because obviously we experience time in a linear fashion. However, no matter where you are on the earth it looks like you are on a flat surface with a sky above you that looks flat but somehow in the distance meets the earth. Even if you're standing on the South Pole, you don't feel like you're upside down and technically all of us except if we are directly at the bottom of the earth are sticking out sideways from the earth itself, but we don't perceive this. Gravity doesn't completely explain it either as when men went to the moon, though there was still gravity, it was much weaker than the earth's and the astronauts still felt like they were on a flat surface. Since this is true, could we not be operating in a circular loop of time but experiencing it as linear?

I'd hate to think of living this life of mine over and over again for all eternity, making the same mistakes over and over, going through the same problems, pain both physical and emotional, etc etc. I guess though that just because the physical universe and world keep being created and destroyed over and over wouldn't necessarily mean that all the same events would have to happen over and over. Perhaps if we ARE energy beings outside our body as some people believe, we exist and are born in each cycle, just maybe not as the same people.

I don't know, like I said, it's kind of crazy I guess, but just something I was thinking about. I've thought of a few possible flaws to this theory and I'm sure others will come up with some as well. ]]> AD13 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3237 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3212&goto=newpost Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:52:44 GMT If you're not familiar with the Liars Paradox (which I will refer to as "LP" in this thread), a quick read on google should make it clear.

The paradox is as follows:

"this statement is false".

This is linguistically interesting, since it leads to an eternal regression where the statement ends up being true when it is false and vice versa. So it appears to violate the law of non contradiction.

But I have resolved it.

First, let's be clear on what it is we mean by true and false before we tackle the statement, and also be conscious of how we interpret the statement, as it can be seen in at least two ways, and one must not unconsciously confuse the two perspectives together, as that is what creates the contradiction, the sense of paradox.

So let's look at it this way:

1) The statement is false insofar as the statement itself exists when it tries to say it doesn't. So it is false in that sense.

2) The statement is true insofar as it correctly denies the validity of it's attempt at denying itself.

So we can say the statement is true from one perspective, and false from another perspective. The context in which the statement is true is not the same context in which it is false. So there is no contradiction in the Liars Paradox statement, despite superficial appearances.

Paradox resolved! ]]> Cory Duchesne http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3212 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3193&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:32:36 GMT Chomsky asserts: “There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of... Chomsky asserts:

“There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of body, and Newton eliminated the last conception of body anybody had. Newton is supposedly the progenitor of the mechanistic, materialist worldview that gave rise to the mind-body problem. But Newton’s own theory on gravity, which showed that objects can influence each other in non mechanistic way, actually shattered the materialist worldview. Materialism presupposes that the world consists of objects that interact through direct contact with each other. But Newton, by discovering gravity - action at a distance - showed that materialism doesn’t work even for phenomenon as simple as a ball rolling down a plane. The world consists not of material objects influencing each other through direct contact but rather, consists of immaterial properties. These properties include gravity, electromagnetism and yes consciousness. It’s an interesting element of the history of human irrationality, that people continue to talk about the mind-body problem.

What do you all think? ]]> Cory Duchesne http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3193 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3164&goto=newpost Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:34:55 GMT Alright, so I was at a friends house the other day and decided to spend the night. I haven't really talked to him for a a couple years and have recently started hanging out with him. He used to be an intelligent guy, but maybe I was wrong or the marijuana ruined his intelligence. In any case, I was explaining to him how some scientist concede the possibility of the universe being a simulation and of course the concept itself. He said "I'd rather die than exist in a simulation"

Now, I myself am leaning towards determinism and therefore the universe being a simulation. But despite how bland the concept may seem I think the universe is still VERY hard to predict and VERY mysterious. So I wouldn't care if I lived in one. But it makes me wonder how much more bizarre the universe is if it actually is a simulation. The idea that something can exist in a simulation and be a part of it while also being aware of it sounds so profound that consciousness is a lot more odd than we can imagine. ]]> OutsideIsInside http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3164 http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3163&goto=newpost Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:06:12 GMT So, my brother has been listening to this guy's ethical theory. Now, I must learn this. Is anyone here familiar with UPB or have any critiques. He sounds like another rationalist that often likes to sling the word 'science' around. He's probably a Randite. However, just maybe he has found a good basis for secular ethics.

Well, if your going to read the book go straight to his proofs. He does carry on. I'm not sure he's a Randite anymore, he appears to be more Kantian. ]]> pseudonous http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=3163